Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s claim that the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development did not spend beyond its approved allocation contradicts his earlier complaint that contractors were not paid because funds had not been channelled to KKDW.
If KKDW did not overspend or overcommit its annual allocation, why were contractors who had completed government projects left unpaid?
The Ministry of Finance has stated clearly that there was no restriction on KKDW’s allocation for rural road projects and that the entire approved allocation had been released. MOF explained that payments to contractors were delayed because the allocation for the current year had already been almost fully spent.
Therefore, Zahid cannot continue blaming others for failing to channel the money. He must explain why KKDW ran out of funds to pay contractors despite receiving its entire approved allocation.
Zahid appears to be relying on a narrow definition of expenditure. Unpaid contractor claims may not yet be recorded as actual expenditure, but they remain contractual commitments and financial liabilities incurred by the government.
For example, if a ministry receives an annual allocation of RM100 million, commits RM130 million in contractual work and pays only RM100 million, it can technically claim that its recorded expenditure did not exceed RM100 million. However, RM30 million would remain unpaid to contractors. The ministry may not have exceeded its cash expenditure ceiling, but it has clearly committed more than the available annual allocation.
This appears to be exactly what happened in KKDW.
MOF stated that KKDW had made commitments and incurred expenditure exceeding the annual allocations approved for rural road projects. It also disclosed that an additional RM300 million was approved in 2026 to help settle payment arrears and that savings from other ministries were being identified to cover KKDW’s excess commitments.
KKDW itself admitted that the RM300 million was required to meet commitments and payment arrears carried forward from previous years. KKDW also said that the amount remained insufficient to settle all its payment requirements.
These admissions cannot be reconciled with Zahid’s sweeping claim that there was no overspending problem.
Zahid must distinguish between actual payments already recorded, contractual commitments already entered into and valid claims that remain unpaid. Keeping contractor claims unpaid may prevent the accounting system from recording expenditure above the available allocation, but it does not erase the government’s liability to those contractors.
The reliance by Zahid’s Political Secretary, Datuk Mohd Razlan Muhammad Rafii, on subsequently revised allocations also does not answer the issue. Mohd Razlan’s own figures showed that JALB allocations were revised upwards by approximately RM2.14 billion between 2023 and 2025 compared with the original annual allocations.
Zahid must disclose where this additional RM2.14 billion came from, when each revision was approved and whether the revisions were approved before or after KKDW entered into the relevant contracts and financial commitments.
If the money came from internal transfers, Zahid must identify the programmes and projects whose allocations were reduced. If the additional allocations were approved only after contractors had completed work and submitted their claims, this would confirm that KKDW’s commitments had exceeded the funding available at the time.
Multi-year projects do not give any ministry the authority to ignore annual cash-flow limits. A project may have an approved overall ceiling, but KKDW must still plan its contracts, work schedules and payment obligations according to the annual allocations available.
Zahid must now answer three simple questions. Why were contractors not paid if KKDW had sufficient allocation? Why was an additional RM300 million required if there was no funding shortfall? Why is MOF looking for savings from other ministries if KKDW did not make commitments beyond its available annual allocation?
Zahid cannot answer these questions merely by asserting that the financial system does not permit overspending. The existence of accounting controls does not prevent a ministry from overcommitting, exhausting its annual allocation and leaving valid contractor claims unpaid.
If Zahid maintains that KKDW neither overspent nor overcommitted its allocation, he should publish the complete financial reconciliation, Treasury warrants, NOC approvals, contractual commitments and unpaid claims for every year from 2023 to 2026.
Until these records are disclosed, Zahid’s claim raises more questions than answers. His own complaint about unpaid contractors supports MOF’s explanation that KKDW’s commitments had exceeded the annual funding available.